Management, Marketing and Operations - Daytona Beach David B. O'Malley College of Business

2011

Customer Loyalty, Repurchase and Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytical Review

Tamilla Curtis Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, [email protected]

Russell Abratt Nova Southeastern University and University of Witwatersrand

Dawna L. Rhoades Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, [email protected]

Paul Dion Susquehanna University

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/db-management

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, International Business Commons, Marketing Commons, and the Strategic Management Policy Commons

Scholarly Commons Citation Curtis, T., Abratt, R., Rhoades, D. L., & Dion, P. (2011). Customer Loyalty, Repurchase and Satisfaction: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 24(). Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/db-management/18

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the David B. O'Malley College of Business at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Management, Marketing and Operations - Daytona Beach by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

CUSTOMER LOYALTY, REPURCHASE AND SATISFACTION: A META-ANALYTICAL REVIEW

Tamilla Curtis, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Russell Abratt, Nova Southeastern University and University of the Witwatersrand Dawna Rhoades, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Paul Dion, Susquehanna University

ABSTRACT powerful impact on firms’ performance by providing a competitive advantage The purpose of this article is to (Edvardsson, Johnson, Gustafsson and investigate the relationship between customer Strandvik 2000; Lam, Shankar, Erramilli and loyalty, repurchase/repurchase intent and Murthy 2004; Reichheld, Markey and Hopton satisfaction in order to attempt to resolve the 2000; Zineldin 2006), numerous loyal mixed views on these concepts. A consumers (Mellens, Dekimpe and quantitative review of loyalty-repurchase- Steenkamp 1996; Zineldin 2006), and satisfaction constructs was conducted to increasing customer satisfaction. Despite identify the strength and direction of the extensive research on the relationships researched relationships and the influence of between customer loyalty, repurchase and possible moderating factors affecting those satisfaction, these constructs appear to be relationships. The Hunter and Schmidt complex and multidimensional, and are, (1990) meta-analytical technique and therefore, not well understood. software were employed. The results While one stream of loyalty- demonstrate that loyalty and satisfaction satisfaction research indicates that loyalty has indicate strong positive relationships (0.54). a strong association with different aspects of Repurchase and satisfaction display a consumer satisfaction (Ashley and Varki complicated relationship, which confirmed 2009; Boshoff 2005; Butcher, et al. 2001; the view that satisfaction does not explain Carpenter and Fairhurst 2005; Law, et al. repurchase behavior. Repurchase intent and 2004; Taylor and Hunter 2002; Yang and satisfaction display strong positive Peterson 2004), other researchers have relationships in the meta-analysis (0.63) and suggested that not all aspects of loyalty are moderator analyses. Loyalty and important to build consumer satisfaction (Floh repurchase/repurchase intent indicate the and Treiblmaier 2006; Genzi and Pelloni strongest positive relationship (0.71) among 2004; Harris and Goode 2004; Kandampully all conducted analyses. This study provides and Suhartanto 2000; Shankar, et al. 2003). value to managers dealing with customer Oliver (1999) proposed six types of satisfaction, loyalty, and repurchase by relationships between satisfaction and loyalty. presenting a detailed overview of these three All these relationships rise from different concepts, and relationships between them. definitions and perspectives on satisfaction and loyalty. On one end of the spectrum, INTRODUCTION satisfaction and loyalty are two manifestations of the same concept. At the other end, satisfaction and loyalty are very distant. Customer loyalty, repurchase and Oliver (1999) demonstrated that ultimate satisfaction are among the most researched loyalty can totally encompass satisfaction, concepts in academia and among the most satisfaction and loyalty can overlap, but also important constructs in practice. Loyalty, that satisfaction does not necessarily repurchase and consumer satisfaction have a

2 Meta Analysis transform into loyalty and can indeed exist studies, few marketing researchers have without the latter. employed this type of analysis to investigate Loyalty-repurchase research recorded customer satisfaction. The few examples different observations as well. While a include Orsingher, et al. (2010) and number of researchers argue that loyal Szymanski and Henard (2001). consumers return to purchase goods or The primary purpose of this study is to services (Taylor and Hunter 2002; Lee, at al. identify whether satisfaction leads to loyalty 2006), others have argued that high formation, which, in turn, leads to repurchase repurchase rates do not necessarily indicate behavior. The result of this meta-analysis will loyalty, while low repurchase rates do not help to determine the strength, magnitude, always indicate disloyalty (Dick and Basu and direction of hypothesized loyalty- 1994; Peyrot and Van Doren 1994; Rowley repurchase-satisfaction relationships. While and Dawes 2000). all reported relationships are positive, the Establishing a direct link between strength of the relationship does vary. Our repurchase and satisfaction ratings has not research addresses existing conflicts in the been easy for many organizations (Mittal and literature, and attempts to resolve the existing Kamakura 2001), and some researchers have mixed views on the studied demonstrated that this link can be weak concepts. Further, in the process of (Homburg and Giering 2001; Kumar 2002; collecting studies for the quantitative analysis, Quick and Burton 2000; Seiders et al. 2005; we have identified the fact that there is a lack Shih and Fang 2005). Jones (2006) pointed of published empirical work on the loyalty- out the importance of communicating the repurchase relationship which some scholars level of customers' satisfaction to the consider especially important. company's shareholders, either in the This article first provides an overview company's annual report, or in its letter to the of the conceptual foundations of loyalty, shareholders, as an overall indication of the repurchase and satisfaction, and their firm's performance. However, satisfaction by relationships. An overview of the meta- itself may not correlate with organizational analysis technique is presented next with the performance. Customers may indicate that database development and method of they are satisfied, but purchase goods and analysis. The results, research findings, services elsewhere (Powers and Valentine discussion and the study implications are 2008). On the other hand, the positive link stated at the end. between customer satisfaction and the profit of corporations was confirmed by a number of CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK researchers (Anderson, Fornell and Lehmann 1994; Anderson and Mittal 2000; Edvardsson, The conceptual framework provides et al. 2000; Fornell 1992; Hallowell 1996; an overview of existing research on Reichheld, et al. 2000; Soderlund and Vilgon satisfaction-loyalty, loyalty-repurchase, and 1999). satisfaction-repurchase relationships, and With all this confusing and identifies the need for conducting a meta- contradictory evidence, additional research is analysis. needed to further the understanding of these constructs and their relationships (Leingpibul, Satisfaction-Loyalty et al. 2009). The objective of a meta-analysis is to For years companies have invested synthesize previously reported statistical significant resources to improve their findings. Although meta-analyses are customers’ satisfaction (Durvasula, et al. frequently conducted for medical research 2004). Customer satisfaction indicates the

Volume 24, 2011 3 general health of the organization, its future various types of loyalty while investigating its prospects, and provides companies with many relationship to satisfaction. Furthermore, benefits including forming consumer loyalty, researchers have also concentrated on preventing customer churn, reducing satisfaction as the independent variable marketing costs, and enhancing business without taking into account different types of reputation (Fornell 1992). The success of the satisfaction. firm’s strategy depends on the company’s Two main views emerged from the ability to fulfill its promises to consumers, literature review of the satisfaction-loyalty which in turn leads to forming long-term, relationship. The first view concluded that profitable relationships (Carpenter and satisfaction is the main driver of consumer Fairhurst 2005). Chow and Zhang (2008) loyalty (Dixon et al., 2005; Fornell 1992; proposed that it is important for managers to Genzi and Pelloni 2004; Mittal and Kamakura identify satisfying product attributes from 2001; Szymanski and Henard 2001). dissatisfying ones, because brand switching is Heitmann et al. (2007) stated that satisfaction more likely to occur as a result of positively affects loyalty, willingness to dissatisfaction. Satisfaction, as an recommend, and word-of-mouth. Further, independent variable, is considered to be satisfaction affects future consumer choices, linked to consumer loyalty and repurchase which in turn leads to improved consumer behavior. retention. Customers stay loyal because they Loyalty is a multidimensional are satisfied, and want to continue their construct, which is defined and viewed relationship. differently by researchers. Consumer loyalty The second view of the satisfaction- is comprised of three distinct constructs: loyalty relationship is that while consumer behavioral loyalty, attitudinal loyalty, and satisfaction may positively influence composite loyalty (Taylor, et al. 2006). These consumer loyalty, it is not sufficient to form constructs affect consumers’ expectations, loyalty (Julander, et al. 2003; Oliver 1999; satisfaction (Leingpibul, et al. 2009) and Reichheld, et al. 2000). These scholars argue repurchase behavior. In order to build loyalty that although loyal consumers are most and to retain consumers, some companies typically satisfied, satisfaction does not impose high switching costs, which in turn universally translate into loyalty. Satisfaction impede switching intentions (Lee and is viewed as a necessary step in loyalty Romaniuk 2009). These switching costs formation, but it becomes less significant as negatively affect consumer relations with the loyalty begins to be gained through other provider. Taylor et al. (2006) identified that mechanisms (Olsen 2007). Several the problem lies in the disagreement on the researchers (Reichheld, et al. 2000; Suh and definition of loyalty, due to the multitude of Yi 2006) reported that even a loyal, satisfied constructs. consumer is vulnerable to situational factors Many scholars have concentrated on such as competitors’ coupons or price cuts. the investigation of the satisfaction-loyalty Therefore, satisfaction is not likely to be the relationship (Anderson and Srinivasan 2003; sole predictor of loyalty. Carpenter and Bloemer and Kasper 1995; Dixon et al., 2005; Fairhurst (2005) suggest that satisfaction Genzi and Pelloni 2004; Mittal and Kamakura influences relative attitude, repurchase, and 2001). Despite these studies, Oliver (1999) recommendation but has no direct effect on stated that an inquiry into the relevant loyalty. literature shows that the satisfaction-loyalty Oliver (1999) proposed six types of link is not well defined. Bloemer and Kasper relationships between satisfaction and loyalty. (1995) indicated that many studies did not All these relationships arise from different take into account the differences between definitions and perspectives on satisfaction

4 Meta Analysis and loyalty. On one end of the spectrum, Loyalty-Repurchase satisfaction and loyalty are two manifestations of the same concept. On the other end, The concept of repurchase and the satisfaction and loyalty are very distant. factors influencing it has been investigated by Oliver (1999) demonstrated that ultimate many scholars (Dick and Basu 1994; loyalty can totally encompass satisfaction, Ehrenberg and Goodhardt 1968; Evans and satisfaction and loyalty can overlap, or there Gentry 2003; Jacoby and Kyner 1973; Law, are occasions when satisfaction does not Hui and Zhao 2004; Mittal and Kamakura transform into loyalty and can exist without it. 2001; Quick and Burton 2000; Seiders et al., Oliver (1999) stated that loyalty emerges as a 2005; Wanke and Fiese 2004). Repurchase is combination of perceived product superiority, defined as a consumer’s actual behavior personal fortitude, social bonding, and their resulting in the purchase of the same product synergistic effects. or service on more than one occasion. The Bloemer and Kasper (1995) proposed majority of consumers’ purchases are that the relationship between consumer potential repeat purchases (Peyrot and Van satisfaction and brand loyalty is not simple Doren 1994). Customers buy similar products and straightforward. The relationship repeatedly from similar sellers, and most between customer satisfaction and loyalty is purchases represent a series of events rather strongly influenced by customer than a single isolated event. Retention is characteristics such as variety-seeking, age, another common term for repurchase and income (Homburg and Gierin 2001). (Hennig-Thurau 2004; Narayandas 1998; Overall, researchers agree that when Zineldin 2006), which is considered to be one consumers are completely satisfied they are of the most important variables in relationship less likely to defect or switch. Therefore, marketing (Fullerton, 2005; Morgan & Hunt, satisfaction is one of the important elements 1994). While repurchase is the actual action, in creating consumer loyalty. However, an repurchase intent is defined as the customer’s increase in satisfaction does not produce an decision to engage in future activities with the equal increase in loyalty for all consumers retailer or supplier (Hume, Mort and Winzar (Soderlund and Vilgon 1999). The 2007). relationship between satisfaction and loyalty Two forms of repurchase are is neither simple nor linear, and satisfied identified: the intention to re-buy customers may defect (Rowley and Dawes (repurchase), and the intention to engage in 2000). Rowley and Dawes (2000) stated that positive word-of-mouth and recommendation a customer's degree of involvement with a (referral) (Zeithaml, et al. 1996). There have product is an important element in forming been discussions in the marketing research loyalty. literature as to whether purchase intentions One explanation for variations in the and past purchasing behavior are correlated satisfaction-loyalty relationship rests on the with actual consumer behavior in the future nature of the judgment tasks involved (Auh (Dixon, et al. 2005). In effect, does and Johnson 2005). Customers could be very repurchase intent actually result in satisfied with their experience and quality of repurchase? the service and be loyal, but will not purchase Loyalty and repurchase are often- it again due to different factors. Therefore, confused constructs (Hume, et al. 2007). This consumer repurchase behavior is one of the could be attributed to the multidimensional main concerns for companies in their pursuit structure of loyalty, as well as to the of profits. numerous definitions of the loyalty concept.

Volume 24, 2011 5

Law, Hui and Zhao (2004, p. 547) use represent a true picture due to the different Oliver’s definition of loyalty as “a deeply characteristics of consumers. The third held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a includes nonlinearity, which means that the preferred product/service consistently in the satisfaction-repurchase function may be future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand nonlinear and vary for different consumers. or same brand-set purchasing, despite Tsai, Huang, Jaw and Chen (2006) situational influences and marketing efforts reported that longitudinal and cross-sectional having the potential to cause switching satisfaction-repurchase studies have behavior”. In other words, they view loyalty demonstrated that satisfied consumers are as an attitude rather than a behavior. more likely to continue their relationship with Behavioral loyalty is solely viewed as a particular organization than dissatisfied repurchase of the product or service. Dixon, ones. This view is supported by a number of et al. (2005) indicated that loyal customers are researchers (Anderson and Sullivan 1993; expected to consistently repurchase in spite of Davidow 2003; Deslandes 2003; Durvasula, competitive efforts. Mellens, et al. (1996) et al. 2004; Eggert and Ulaga 2002; Fullerton reported that brand loyalty entails actual 2005; Harris 2003; Hennig-Thurau purchases of a brand, and verbal statements of 2004; Jones, et al. 2000; Mittal and Kamakura preference are not sufficient to ensure brand 2001; Preis 2003; Szymanski and Henard loyalty. The consumer’s disposition to 2001). repurchase is an essential element of loyalty In contrast, Olsen (2002) stated that (Law, et al. 2004). despite the common view that satisfaction is Powers and Valentine (2008) have linked to repurchase, few empirical studies suggested that cumulative levels of can be found that relate satisfaction to actual satisfaction influence the consumer's loyalty repurchase behavior. and Kamakura (2001) to the product or service, which in turn, indicated that establishing a direct link influences behavioral intentions including between repurchase and satisfaction ratings purchase behavior (Powers and Valentine has not been easy for many organizations. In 2008). Managers need to focus on marketing addition, the satisfaction-repurchase in order to ensure that they have satisfied relationship can be affected by customers, which ensure higher levels of consumers’ characteristics. Despite the repurchase behavior and an increase in loyal identical ratings on satisfaction, a significant customers (Solvang 2007). difference was observed in repurchase behavior, which was attributed to differences Satisfaction-Repurchase in consumer age, education, marital status, sex, and area of residency (Mittal and Early studies in consumer behavior Kamakura 2001). explored the relationship between repurchase A number of factors complicate the and the level of satisfaction. However, this satisfaction-loyalty-repurchase relationship. relationship is not straight forward. Mittal The problem exists that researchers do not and Kamakura (2001) stated that the consistently define loyalty across studies, satisfaction-repurchase relationship can which could be operationalized as behavioral, display variability due to three main reasons. attitudinal, or composite (Taylor, et al. The first includes satisfaction thresholds, 2006). This creates a misunderstanding on which consist of satisfied consumers who how loyalty forms, and the strength of its have different levels of repurchase due to relation to satisfaction and repurchase. their different characteristics. The second Consumer satisfaction could occur during includes response bias, which means that different stages of the shopping process (pre, ratings obtained from the survey may not during, and post), during purchase of different

6 Meta Analysis types of goods (convenience, shopping, and them to a common metric, and then combine specialty) (Bassi and Guido 2006), and in a them to obtain an average effect size”. The traditional or online setting (Lee and Overby third step in meta-analysis includes 2004). In addition, consumers consist of conducting the meta-analysis procedure and different types (Halstead et al. 2007), and they analyzing the obtained results. Saxton (2006) all have different levels of knowledge about indicated that meta-analysis tests whether the product (Hicks, et al. 2005), which affects findings from multiple studies, involving bi- their level of satisfaction. variate analysis, agree or disagree in terms of Understanding the importance of a the direction of association between variables comprehensive review, our study attempts to and the strength of that relationship. In summarize previously reported findings to summary, the primary goal of meta-analysis is explain the complex relationships between to address three general issues: central satisfaction, loyalty and repurchase. Does tendency, variability, and prediction (Johnson, satisfaction have strong relationships with Mullen and Salas 1995). loyalty and repurchase? Does loyalty have a strong relationship with repurchase? What is Step 1: Database Development the strength and the direction of the relationships uncovered in the various A rigorous and comprehensive search research projects published in the literature? for relevant studies on the relationship We believe that this article will between loyalty-satisfaction, repurchase- provide practitioners with an improved satisfaction, and loyalty-repurchase was understanding of what influences consumer conducted. Eighty published studies, which satisfaction, loyalty and repurchase behavior appeared to be suitable for conducting the toward a product or service. Knowledge of meta-analysis, were identified with reported consumers' satisfaction, loyalty and relationships on the key constructs. These repurchase behavior will enhance the studies were identified through search engines practitioner's ability to develop more effective of electronic databases such as ABI/Inform, marketing strategies in the future (Leingpibul, ProQuest, WilsonWeb, JSTOR, PsycINFO, et al. 2009). UMI, and others by using key words including satisfaction, loyalty, or repurchase. Searches of the references found in the METHODOLOGY available studies were conducted in addition to the manual searches of top-ranked peer We use a meta-analysis technique in reviewed journals such as the Journal of the this study. It is a technique for summarizing Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of and testing statistical results across many Marketing Research, Psychology & independent researchers’ findings related to Marketing, Journal of Financial Services the same topic. The first step in conducting a Marketing, Journal of Service Research, meta-analysis is to collect studies and to International Journal of Service Industry extract information in order to create a Management, Journal of Consumer database of individual research findings Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction and Complaining related to the investigated research topic. The Behavior, Management Science, and others. second step in meta-analysis includes the The identified studies were coded by conversion of collected statistical information two independent researchers into three to the same measurement scale, if needed. separate databases: Loyalty-Satisfaction, Field (2001, p. 162) indicated, “In meta- Repurchase-Satisfaction, and Loyalty- analysis, the basic principle is to calculate Repurchase. The independently-compiled effect sizes for individual studies, convert databases were compared for data

Volume 24, 2011 7 discrepancies and corrected. Due to the Intent-Satisfaction (see Table 1). Industries number of scholars who examined included large and small corporations, retail, Repurchase Intent separately from banking, e-commerce, hotel, restaurants, Repurchase, the Repurchase-Satisfaction cosmetics, recreational facilities, media, database was further divided into two: insurance, automotive, transportation, and Repurchase-Satisfaction and Repurchase others.

Table 1

Database Characteristics

Total Number of Total Number Number of Studies Reported Results of Subjects (Correlations)

Loyalty-Satisfaction 32 82 153,150 Repurchase-Satisfaction 6 11 13,098 Repurchase Intent-Satisfaction 19 59 1,640,056 Loyalty-Repurchase 4 7 2,172

______

Not all identified studies were than one correlation coefficient. Therefore, included in the database. Nineteen studies the number of selected studies does not with incomplete information, studies with correspond exactly to the number of obtained fewer than 20 subjects and studies with correlation coefficients. statistical measurements which could not be converted to the desired statistics were Step 3: Method of Analysis excluded from the database after additional review. The summary of the studies included Three constructs (loyalty, in the meta-analysis is provided in Appendix repurchase/repurchase intent, and satisfaction) A. were examined. The suggested sample size within individual studies should be at least 20 Step 2: The Conversion subjects (Ankem 2005; Hunter and Schmidt 2004; Saxton 2006). F-distribution values, t-distribution Our research employed the Hunter and values, or chi-squares with their Schmidt (1990) meta-analytical approach and corresponding degrees of freedom were the Hunter and Schmidt software package for converted to Pearson product-moment computations. This method weights correlation coefficients. Not all statistical individual correlations by the sample size and measurements could be converted to the assumes that the correlations entered are desired statistics due to a lack of information independent. If this assumption is violated, it available in the studies; therefore, several would not affect the calculated mean, but studies were excluded from the database. A would cause an inaccurate calculation of the few studies conducted two or more analyses sampling error variance. Therefore, it could under different conditions and reported more lead to possible distortions in significance

8 Meta Analysis testing (Sundaramurthy, Rhoades and intervals. The moderator analyses were Rechner 2005). After the calculation of the conducted to further investigate the mean weighted correlation across all studies, relationships between the researched the standard deviation of the observed constructs. correlations was used to estimate the Moderator variables are additional variability in the relationship. The sampling independent factors that can influence the error, reliability of individual studies, and relationship between the researched range restrictions contributed to estimate the constructs (Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson true variability around the population 2009). The presence of moderator variables correlation (Sundaramurthy, et al. 2005). indicates that there may be more than one After all studies’ individual effect population involved. The variance in the sizes are calculated, these are combined to effect sizes and the credibility intervals obtain an average or pooled effect size, which indicate whether moderators might be present. is a more precise indicator of the strength of If the credibility or confidence intervals the relationship between two variables across surrounding the mean corrected correlation studies than the effect size of a single study include zero, then the mean corrected effect (Ankem 2005). In the calculation of the size is probably the mean of several pooled effect size, the individual effect sizes subpopulations identified by the operation of are weighted by sample size within each study moderators (Hunter and Schmidt 1990; to give more weight to the results of those Sundaramurthy, et al. 2005; Whitener 1990). studies with larger sample sizes. “Upon In case the moderator is present, the calculation of the aggregate effect size, population should be broken down into significance in meta-analysis is generally subpopulations. “If the effect size is the mean gauged by computing 95% confidence of several population parameters, or intervals around the average effect size” subpopulations identified by the operation of (Ankem 2005, p.164). moderators, then the variance in observed effect sizes is due to both true variance in Moderator Analyses effect sizes and variance due to sampling error” (Whitener 1990, p. 316). Hunter and Schmidt (1990) The collected studies used for the recommended conducting moderator analyses meta-analysis represent consumer samples if the 90% credibility interval surrounding the from around the world. Jones, et al. (2010) mean corrected correlation includes zero, or if reported that culture moderates the consumer the study artifacts do not account for more shopping values and affects shopper than 75% of the variance across studies. satisfaction. One of the reasons, they Moderator analyses can provide additional explained, is that American consumers insights into the research relationships and conduct their shopping activities in an help in further refining the strength of those advanced retail setting with a variety of relationships. The employed technique goods, which is not the case in some other weights individual correlations by the sample countries. Therefore, the geographic area of size and assumes that the correlations entered the collected samples was used as one of the are independent (Hunter and Schmidt 1990). moderators. The variability in the relationship between Marketing researchers usually studied variables was estimated by using the investigate two types of customer satisfaction: standard deviation of observed correlation product satisfaction and service satisfaction (Sundaramurthy, et al. 2005). The statistical (Yoshida and James 2010). The differences significance was assessed with a 95% between products and services have received confidence and 90% credibility much attention in academia. Products

Volume 24, 2011 9 outperform services in several categories including satisfaction and perceived quality 2. The category (Edvardsson, et al. 2000). Consumers could (Product and Service) be satisfied with the product performance but dissatisfied with the service components such 3. The business setting as sales or pre- or post- purchase services. (B2B and B2C). Therefore, these categories (product and service) were investigated as another moderator of the loyalty-repurchase- Due to the small number of identified studies satisfaction relations. conducted in the B2B setting, the B2B moderator was subsequently eliminated. Piercy (2010) suggested that business- to-business (B2B) companies might have The Hunter and Schmidt (1990) different requirements and responses to software package was utilized to compute the customers and different market pressures for following statistics: the total sample size; higher service and investments, as opposed to correlations (observed and corrected); business-to-consumer companies (B2C). B2B standard deviations (observed, residual, and management place a large focus on corrected); and the percent of variance involvement by aligning sales operations with attributed to the sampling error. strategic direction, intelligence, integration of cross-functional relationships, internal RESULTS marketing and infrastructure (Piercy, 2010). Those managerial emphases will be different Loyalty-Satisfaction for B2C companies due to the nature of the business. Therefore, the business setting was The results of the Loyalty-Satisfaction included as third moderator for the studied meta-analysis are displayed next in Table 2. constructs. The mean observed correlation between loyalty and satisfaction was 0.54. The Moderator analyses were conducted sampling error accounted only for 1.02% of by dividing the total sample into three main the observed variance, indicating the presence sub-groups based on the specific factors, of moderator variables. The finding of which were identified through the literature statistical significance at the 95% confidence review and the compiled databases level indicated that loyalty and satisfaction (Sundaramurthy, et al. 2005). Separate correlations fall within a 0.23-0.85 interval. analyses for the identified factor were Neither the credibility interval nor the conducted for each sub-group: confidence interval included zero, which indicates that the observed relationship is consistently positive. 1. The geographic area of the collected sample (North America, Europe, and Other)

10 Meta Analysis

Table 2

Loyalty-Satisfaction Meta-Analysis and Moderator Analyses

Moderators: Moderators: Meta- North Measure Analysis Europe Other Product Service America

Sample size 153,150 125,655 22,488 5,007 7,642 145,504

Number of correlations 82 31 36 15 15 67

Observed correlation 0.54 0.51 0.41 0.6 0.47 0.55

Observed SD 0.16 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16

%Variance attributable to SE 1.02% 0.30% 3.63% 5.86% 4.12% 0.88%

SD residual 0.16 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.1592

Corrected correlation 0.54 0.51 0.41 0.6 0.47 0.5476

SD of corrected r 0.16 0.2 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.1573

Moderator analyses were conducted to possible presence of additional factors further clarify the strength of the loyalty- moderating the observed results. satisfaction relationship. Moderator analyses were conducted on two identified factors: the The finding of a statistical significance geographic area of the collected sample at the 95% confidence level for the (North America, Europe, and Other) and the Geographic Area moderators indicated that category (product and service) (see Table 2). loyalty and satisfaction correlations for the "Other" factor included Australia, Cyprus, North America factor fall within a 0.11-0.92 South-Africa, Hong Kong, Korea, and interval; Europe falls within a 0.08-0.74 Malaysia. The majority of the sample was interval; and the “Other” factor falls within a collected in the B2C setting (82 versus 3). As 0.32-0.87 interval. The finding of statistical such, the B2B moderator was not significance at the 95% confidence level for investigated, and the results of the B2C the Category factor indicates that loyalty and setting are assumed to be similar to the satisfaction correlations fall within a 0.15- already-obtained loyalty-satisfaction meta- 0.80 interval for the product category, and analysis results. within a 0.24-0.86 interval for the service The results indicate that the strongest category. Neither the credibility interval nor relationship between loyalty and satisfaction the confidence interval for all the conducted is displayed by the “Service” factor, with moderator analyses include zero, which mean correlation of 0.55. The large indicates that the observed relationships percentage of unexplained variances for the between loyalty and satisfaction are geographic area factor might indicate the consistently positive for those 5 moderators.

Volume 24, 2011 11

Repurchase-Satisfaction

Results of the meta-analysis for repurchase and satisfaction are displayed in the Table 3.

Table 3

Repurchase-Satisfaction Meta-Analysis and Moderator Analyses

Moderators: Moderators: Meta- Measure Analysis North Europe Product Service America

Sample size 13,098 2,115 5,917 4,940 3,092

Number of correlations 11 3 7 6 4

Observed correlation 0.56 0.11 0.4 0.34 0.3

Observed SD 0.35 0.11 0.2 0.03 0.29

% Variance attributable to SE 0.32% 11.26% 2.13% 3.47% 1.33%

SD residual 0.35 0.11 0.2 0.16 0.28

Corrected correlation 0.56 0.11 0.4 0.34 0.3

SD of corrected r 0.34 0.11 0.2 0.16 0.3

The mean correlation between Moderator analyses were conducted to repurchase and satisfaction is 0.56. The further clarify the strength of the researched percentage of observed variance attributed to repurchase-satisfaction relationship (Table 3). the sampling error is 0.32%, which indicates Moderator analyses were conducted on two the presence of moderator variables. The factors: the geographic area of the collected 95% confidence and the 90% credibility sample (North America and Europe); and the intervals for the repurchase-satisfaction category (product and service). There were relationship did include zero. The finding of no samples from other regions. The business statistical significance at the 95% confidence setting factor (B2B and B2C) was not level indicates that there is a 5% chance that examined because all collected studies were no relationship between the repurchase and conducted in the B2C setting only. satisfaction exists. A small sample size of 11 The strongest relationship between correlations resulted in a large standard repurchase and satisfaction for moderators is deviation, which makes the confidence displayed by the Europe factor, with a mean interval so wide that it includes zero. No neg- correlation of 0.4. The large percentage of ative correlations were observed in the raw unexplained variances for the North America data. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume geographic area might indicate the possible that any relationship that exists is positive. presence of additional factors moderating the observed results.

12 Meta Analysis

The 95% confidence and 90% In contrast, confidence and credibility credibility intervals for the repurchase- intervals for the service moderator did include satisfaction relationship for the North zero. In part, these results might be due to the America factor did include zero. The finding small samples which make the analysis of statistical significance at the 95% somewhat unstable. The finding of statistical confidence level indicated that there is a 5% significance at the 95% confidence level chance that no relationship between the indicates that there is a 5% chance that no repurchase and satisfaction researched relationship between the repurchase and constructs exists for the North America satisfaction researched constructs exists for factor. A small sample size of only three the service category. A small sample size of correlations resulted in a large standard only 4 correlations resulted in a large std. deviation, which makes the confidence deviation, which makes the confidence interval so wide that it includes zero. No interval so wide that it includes zero. No negative correlations were observed in the negative correlations were observed in the raw data. Therefore, it is reasonable to raw data; therefore, any relationship that assume that any relationship that exists is exists is positive. positive. Neither the credibility interval nor the Repurchase Intent - Satisfaction confidence interval for Europe and Product moderators include zero, which indicates that The results of the analysis for repurchase the observed relationship is consistently intent and satisfaction are displayed next in positive. The finding of significance at the Table 4. 95% confidence level indicates that repurchase and satisfaction correlations for Europe fall within a 0.02-0.78 interval. Table 4 Repurchase Intent-Satisfaction Meta-Analysis and Moderator Analyses

Moderators: Moderators: Moderator: Meta- North Measure Analysis Asia Product Service B2C America Sample size 1,640,056 1,610,189 6,848 1,607,438 32,618 1,636,989

Number of correlations 59 40 16 29 30 46

Observed correlation 0.63 0.64 0.51 0.63 0.48 0.63

Observed SD 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.03 0.12 0.04

% Variance attributable 0.67% 0.72% 4.46% 0.56% 3.57% 0.59% to SE SD residual 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.03 0.12 0.04

Corrected correlation 0.63 0.64 0.51 0.64 0.48 0.63

SD of corrected r 0.04 0.04 0.16 0.04 0.12 0.04

Volume 24, 2011 13

The mean correlation between strongest relationship between repurchase repurchase intent and satisfaction was 0.63, intent and satisfaction moderators is displayed which is significant and strong. The percent by the North America factor, with mean of the observed variance attributable to the correlation of 0.64. The finding of statistical sampling error was 0.67%, which indicates significance at the 95% confidence level that there are other factors moderating the indicates that repurchase intent and observed results. The repurchase intent- satisfaction correlations for North America satisfaction relationship is consistently fall within a 0.57-0.70 interval, and within a positive as indicated by the credibility interval 0.19-0.83 interval for Asia. Neither the and the confidence interval, which did not credibility interval nor the confidence interval include zero. The finding of significance at include zero for both geographic areas, the 95% confidence level indicates that indicating that the observed relationship is repurchase intent and satisfaction correlations consistently positive. fall within a 0.55-0.72 interval. The Most studies in the product category satisfaction construct is clearly a strong, were conducted in the auto industry. The positive indicator of repurchase intent. finding of statistical significance at the 95% To further investigate this relationship confidence level indicates that repurchase (Table 4), moderator analyses were conducted intent and satisfaction correlations for the on three factors: the geographic area of the product category fall within a 0.57-0.70 collected sample (North America and Asia); interval, and within a 0.24-0.71 interval for the category (product and service); and the the service category. Neither the credibility business setting (B2B and B2C). Once again, interval nor the confidence interval include due to the small sample size in of the B2B zero, which indicates that the observed category (3,434), this category was eliminated relationship is consistently positive. from the analysis. No samples from European countries were presented. The

Table 5 Loyalty-Repurchase/Repurchase Intent Meta-Analysis

Measure Meta-Analysis

Sample size 2,172

Number of correlations 7

Observed correlation 0.71

Observed SD 0.11

% Variance attributable to SE 6.61%

SD residual 0.11

Corrected correlation 0.71

SD of corrected r 0.11

14 Meta Analysis

Loyalty-Repurchase/Repurchase Intent a relationship between satisfaction-loyalty- repurchase) was surprisingly small. Most of The results of the conducted Loyalty- the identified studies focused on the Repurchase/Repurchase Intent meta-analysis relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. are displayed in Table 5 Olsen (2002) was correct in that despite the The mean correlation between loyalty common view that satisfaction is linked to and satisfaction is 0.71. The sampling error repurchase, few empirical studies can be accounts for a 6.61% of the observed found that relate satisfaction to actual variance. Neither the credibility interval nor repurchase behavior. From a firm’s the confidence interval includes zero, which perspective, this aspect is critical. The indicates that the observed relationship is purpose of a meta-analysis is to provide a consistently positive. The finding of quantitative review of the strength and statistical significance at the 95% confidence direction of a set of relationships, in this case level indicates that loyalty and repurchase/ between satisfaction-loyalty-repurchase. The repurchase intent correlations fall within a moderator analyses further investigate the 0.50-0.91 interval. research constructs and help to identify additional areas that may need to be explored. DISCUSSION The summary of the observed correlations for While satisfaction has been a widely the researched constructs is presented in researched topic in the marketing literature, Table 6. the number of studies that actually met the criteria of meta-analysis (reported statistics of

Table 6

The Observed Correlations

Moderators: Moderators: Moderator: Meta- North Constructs Analysis Europe Other Product Service B2C America Loyalty-Satisfaction 0.54 0.51 0.41 0.6 0.47 0.55 0.54

Repurchase-Satisfaction 0.56¹ 0.11¹ 0.4 n/a 0.34 0.30¹ 0.56

Rep Intent-Satisfaction 0.63 0.64 n/a 0.51 0.64 0.48 0.63

Loyalty-Rep/Rep Intent 0.71

¹ Confidence intervals include zero

In both the meta-analysis and the five geographic region factor (0.60), followed by moderator analyses, loyalty and satisfaction the "Service" moderator (0.55). The results reveal strong positive relationships. The confirmed the view that satisfied consumers strongest relationship between loyalty and do display loyalty. This is an important point satisfaction appears to be within the "Other” for practitioners.

Volume 24, 2011 15

The repurchase and satisfaction repurchase/repurchase intent constructs are constructs display a complicated relationship. positively linked. The correlation coefficient for the overall meta-analysis is 0.56. However, the 95% RESEARCH LIMITATIONS confidence interval and 90% credibility interval include zero, indicating that there is a This study has several limitations. small likelihood that those constructs are not First, meta-analysis studies were collected related at all. The small sample size collected from peer-reviewed publications by using for the meta-analysis (11) resulted in a large internet search engines, manual searches, and standard deviation, which makes the other references. This research did not confidence intervals wide enough to include include studies that partially reported needed zero. The moderator analyses for North- statistics, or statistics that cannot be converted America and the Service factors displayed at to correlation coefficients. No unpublished the 95% confidence interval also included work was identified or included in the study zero. The collected sample sizes were 3 and 4 either. Second, the moderator analyses were respectively, which resulted in large conducted only on three identified criteria: confidence intervals. The obtained results for geographic region of the collected sample; the the repurchase-satisfaction relationship category (product and service); and the confirmed Szymanski and Henard’s (2001) business setting (B2C). Third, small sample observation about the failure of satisfaction to sizes were collected for the repurchase- explain repurchase behavior. Satisfaction is a satisfaction meta-analysis (11), repurchase- multifaceted construct; therefore, some satisfaction moderator analyses for North aspects of satisfaction are more predictive of America (3) and Service (4) factors. repurchase than others. This resulted in large standard The meta-analysis and the moderator deviations, which made confidence intervals analyses indicate that repurchase intent and wide enough to include zero. Additional satisfaction display strong positive research needs to be done in the repurchase- relationships. Generally, satisfied customers satisfaction area perhaps by looking at the do show a strong intent to repurchase. This is size of the purchase. another important point for practitioners. The difference between repurchase IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY intent and repurchase and satisfaction relationships could be explained by the large Most of the identified studies were sample size for repurchase/repurchase intent- collected in the area of loyalty-satisfaction, satisfaction studies that came from the U.S. which displayed strong and moderately strong auto industry, which represents the sale of relationships with the strongest occurring for expensive items (cars). Therefore, the Service moderator (see Table 6). While consumers’ actual behavior could be heavily the direct relationship between loyalty and affected by auto deals and rebate offers. For customer satisfaction has been shown to be example, consumers could be satisfied with complex and asymmetric (Yu and Dean one car make but due to a promotion might 2001), our meta-analysis confirmed that a actually purchase another make. relatively strong correlation exists between Both the meta-analysis and the these concepts. In fact, it would seem moderator analyses indicate that loyalty and counterintuitive to suggest that dissatisfied repurchase/repurchase intent indicate the customers would remain loyal. The critical strongest positive relationship (0.71) of all the question for firms, however, is “Does relationships studied. These results satisfaction lead to repurchase?” Here the confirmed the view that loyalty and the answer is clouded by two issues.

16 Meta Analysis

First, most of the studies identified services are only produced when needed. The examined satisfaction and repurchase intent, research finding is consistent with the not actual repurchase, and the number of Edvardsson et al. (2000) observation that studies looking at the relationship between companies working with physical products do intent and repurchase is too small to draw not make money on loyalty per se but rather conclusions about the strength of this they make money on customer relationship. If highly satisfied customers are satisfaction. Service companies attempt to likely to make future purchases (Zeithaml et foster consumer loyalty by offering them al. 1996) and if it is cheaper to retain existing loyalty programs such as frequent flyer miles customers than attract new customers (Yu and for airlines. Dean 2001), then this final link in the chain The overall research results support (satisfaction to loyalty to intent to repurchase) the view that while the loyalty-satisfaction- is an important one. This is consistent with repurchase intent link is straight forward, the Mittal and Kamakura’s (2001) observation satisfaction and repurchase link might not that the relationship between satisfaction and be. Customer loyalty, satisfaction and repurchase is more complicated, can result in repurchase are strong indicators of how no correlation, and can be moderated by people will act in the future, and if customers several factors. The relationship between will actually return to the same company customer satisfaction and repurchase is again (Edvardsson et al. 2000). This study assumed to be positive, but vary between aids academicians and practitioners to products, industries, and situations (Olsen, et develop more effective organizational al. 2005). strategies, which should lead to better Second, research is not clear on when positioning in order to achieve overall less-than-satisfied customers might repurch- competitive advantages (Leingpibul et al. ase. Lack of competition or lack of 2009). knowledge about alternatives or switching barriers can all lead less-than-satisfied CONCLUSION customers to repurchase. In these situations, the firm needs to understand when improving Many studies independently examined satisfaction will actually increase sales. different combinations of relationships and While this study confirmed strong positive the present research synthesizes previously relationships between loyalty and reported findings. Despite the reported mixed repurchase/repurchase intent, the strongest results on loyalty-repurchase-satisfaction among all conducted analyses, the issue of relationships collected from a large number of relatively few studies in this area remains. published empirical studies, the meta-analysis Consumers’ geographic location, findings suggest that strong positive product vs. service companies, and the relationships exist between the researched business setting should be taken into account constructs. However, these relationships are when developing marketing strategies. Jones also moderated by different factors, including et al. (2010) highlighted the importance of the collected samples’ geographic regions, the culture, which moderates the consumer category (products versus service), and the shopping values. Among the product/service business setting. Overall, loyalty is positively moderators, the strongest link was found linked to repurchase and satisfaction, while between repurchase intent and satisfaction for satisfaction is positively linked to repurchase the product category, followed by the loyalty- intention. satisfaction link for the service category. The The meta-analysis contributes to the difference could be explained in that product growing knowledge of the relationships manufacturing creates inventory, however, between loyalty, repurchase, and satisfaction

Volume 24, 2011 17 by assessing the current state of the empirical Anderson, Eugene W., and Vikas Mittal (2000), research on those three variables using meta- “Strengthening the satisfaction-profit analysis. This research addressed the existing chain,” Journal of Service Research, Vol.3 gap in the literature, and attempted to resolve No.2, pp. 107-120. the existing mixed views on the studied Anderson, Eugene W. and Sullivan, Mary W. (1993)*, “The antecedents and consequences concepts. of customer satisfaction for firms,” Marketing This research is important to Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-143. academicians as well as practitioners. First, Ankem, Kalyani (2005), “Approaches to meta- while many studies independently examined analysis: A guide for LIS different combinations of relationships researchers,” Library and Information Science between loyalty, repurchase, and satisfaction, Research, Vol.27 No.2, pp. 164-176. this research synthesized the previously Ashley, Christy and Sajeev Varki (2009), reported findings. The meta-analytical "Loyalty and its influence on complaining technique identified the true relationships behavior and service recovery between the studied variables and their satisfaction," Journal of Consumer directions. This study provides value to Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 21-35. managers dealing with consumer satisfaction, Aug, Seigyoung and Michael D. Johnson (2005), loyalty, and repurchase by presenting a “Compatibility effects in evaluations detailed overview of those three concepts, and of satisfaction and loyalty,” Journal of the relationships between them. Despite some Economic Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 35-57. of these relationships not being very straight Bassi, Francesca and Gianluigi Guido (2006), forward, and affected by many internal and "Measuring customer satisfaction: from external factors, as the literature review product performance to consumption suggests, the overall picture reveals the experience," Journal of Consumer positive link between loyalty, repurchase Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining intent, and satisfaction. The nature of the Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 76-88. industry, company size, and situational factors Bennett, Rebekah and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele (2004), "Consumer satisfaction should not be largely affect consumers’ loyalty, satisfaction, the only goal," Journal of Services Marketing, and the repurchase rate. Vol.18 No.7, pp. 514-523. Managers need to take into Bloemer, Josée M. M. and Hans D. P. Kasper consideration many factors before making a (1995), “The complex relationship between decision where to invest and formulate a consumer satisfaction and brand marketing strategy: either in creating loyalty,” Journal of Economic Psychology, consumer loyalty, increasing consumer Vol.16, pp. 311-329. satisfaction, increasing repurchase rate, or all Boshoff, Christo (2005)*, “A re-assessment and three at the same time. Our meta-analysis refinement of RECOVSAT: an instrument to confirmed that satisfied consumers do display measure satisfaction with transaction-specific strong loyalty and a higher repurchase recovery,” Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 410-425. intention rate; however, the relationship Butcher, Ken, Sparks, Beverly and O’Callaghan between satisfaction and actual repurchase Frances (2001)*, “Evaluation and relational rate is more complicated. influences on service loyalty,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. REFERENCES 12 No. 4, pp. 310-327. Carpenter, Jason M. and Ann Fairhurst (2005)*, Anderson, Eugene W., Claes Fornell, and Donald “Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and R. Lehmann (1994), “Customer satisfaction, loyalty for retail apparel brands,” Journal of market share, and profitability: Findings from Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 9 Sweden,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.58 No.3, No.3, pp. 256-269. pp. 53-66.

18 Meta Analysis

Chow, Clement S. F. and Lida L. Zhang (2008), Evans, John P. and James A. Gentry (2003), "Measuring consumer satisfaction and “Using Tobin's Q ratio to assess the strategy dissatisfaction intensities to identify satisfiers of repurchasing shares,” Finance India, and dissatisfies," Journal of Consumer Vol.17 No.1, pp. 149-163. Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Field, Andy P. (2001), “Meta-Analysis of Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 66-79. Correlation Coefficients: A Monte Carlo Davidow, Moshe (2003)*, “Have you heard the Comparison of Fixed- and Random-Effects world? The effect of word of mouth on Methods,” Psychological Methods, Vol.6 perceived justice, satisfaction and repurchase No.2, pp. 161-180. intentions following complaint Floh, Arne and Treiblmaier, Horst (2006)*, “What handling,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, keeps the e-banking customer loyal? A Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, multigroup analysis of the moderating role of Vol. 16, pp.67-80. consumer characteristics on e-loyalty in the Deslandes, Derrick D. (2003)*, “Assessing financial service industry,” Journal of consumer perceptions of destinations: a Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 97- necessary first step in the destination branding 110. process,” Doctoral dissertation, Florida State Fornell, Claes (1992)*, “A national customer University. satisfaction barometer: The Swedish Dick, Alan S. and Kunal Basu (1994)*, experience,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated No.1, pp. 6-21. conceptual framework,” Journal of the Fullerton, Gordon (2005)*, “The impact of brand Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.22 No.2, commitment on loyalty to retail service pp. 99-113. brands,” Canadian Journal of Administrative Dixon, Jane, Kerrie Bridson, Jody Evans, and Sciences, Vol.22 No.2, pp. 97-110. Michael Morrison (2005), “An alternative Guenzi, Paolo and Ottavia Pelloni (2004)*, “The perspective on relationships, loyalty and impact of interpersonal relationships on future store choice,” The International Review customer satisfaction and loyalty to the of Retail, Distribution and Consumer service provider,” International Journal of Research, Vol.15 No. 4, pp. 351-374. Service Industry Management, Vol.15 No.3/4, Durvasula, Srinivas, Steven Lysonski, Subhash C. pp. 365-384. Mehta, and Buck P. Tang (2004)*, “Forging Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin relationships with services: The antecedents and Rolph E. Anderson (2009), Multivariate that have an impact on behavioural outcomes Data Analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: NJ. in the life insurance industry,” Journal of Hallowell, Roger (1996), “The relationships of Financial Services Marketing, Vol.8 No.4, pp. customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and 314-326. profitability: an empirical study, Edvardsson, Bo, Michael D. Johnson, Anders ” International Journal of Service Industry Gustafsson and Tore Strandvik (2000)*, “The Management, Vol.7 No.4, pp. 27-42. effects of satisfaction and loyalty on profits Halstead, Diane, Michael A. Jones and April N. and growth: Products versus services,” Total Cox (2007), "Satisfaction theory and the Quality Management, Vol.11 No.7, pp. 917- disadvantaged consumer," Journal of 927. Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Eggert, Andreas and Ulaga, Wolfgang (2002)*, Complaining Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 15-35. “Customer perceived value: a substitute for Harris, Kendra L. (2003)*, “Justice Theory in satisfaction in business markets?” The Journal online and offline complaint satisfaction: an of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17 empirical study,” Doctoral dissertation, The No. 2/3, pp. 107-118. George Washington University. Ehrenberg, Andrew S. C., and Gerald J. Harris, Lloyd C. and Goode, Mark M.H. (2004)*, Goodhardt (1968), “A comparison of “The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role American and British repeat-buying of trust: a study of online service habits,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.5 dynamics,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. No.1, pp. 29-33. 2, pp. 139-158.

Volume 24, 2011 19

Hellier, Phillip K., Gus M. Geursen, Rodney A. Jones, Michael A., David L. Mothersbaugh and Carr and John A. Rickard (2003), “Customer Sharon E. Beatty (2003), “The effects of repurchase intention: A general structural locational convenience on customer equation model,” European Journal of repurchase intentions across service Marketing, Vol. 37 No.11/12, types,” The Journal of Services Marketing, pp. 1762-1800. Vol.17 No.6/7, pp. 701-710. Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten (2004)*, “Customer Jones, Michael A. (2006), "A content analysis of orientation of service employees: Its impact customer satisfaction in annual reports," on customer satisfaction, commitment, and Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, retention,” International Journal of Service Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Industry Management, Vol.15 No.5, pp. 460- Vol. 19, pp. 59-75. 478. Jones, Marilyn Y., Sonia Vilches-Montero, Mark Hicks, Jessica M., Thomas J. Page, Bridget K. T. Spence, Sevgin A. Eroglu and Karen A. Behe, Jennifer H. Dennis and Thomas R. Machleit (2010), "Do Australian and Fernandez (2005), “Delighted consumers buy American consumers differ in their perceived again,” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, shopping experiences? A bi-cultural Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, analysis," International Journal of Retail & Vol.18, pp. 94-104. Distribution Management, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. Homburg, Christian and Annette Gierin (2001)*, 578-596. “Personal characteristics as moderators of the Julander, Claes-Robert, Magnus Soderlund relationship between customer satisfaction and Ragnar Soderberg (2003), “Effects of and loyalty - An empirical switching barriers on satisfaction, repurchase analysis,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol.18 intentions and attitudinal loyalty,” Working No.1, pp. 43-66. Paper, Stockholm School of Economics. Hume, Margee, Gillian Sullivan Mort and Hume Heitmann, Mark, Donald R. Lehmann and Winzar (2007), “Exploring repurchase Andreas Herrmann (2007), “Choice goal intention in a performing arts context: Who attainment and decision and consumption comes? And why do they come satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, back?” International Journal of Nonprofit and Vol.44, No. 2, pp. 234-245. Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 12 No.2, Kandampully, Jay and Suhartano, Dwi (2000)*, pp. 135-148. “Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the Hunter, John E. and Frank L. Schmidt (1990), role of customer satisfaction and image,” Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error International Journal of Contemporary and bias in research findings. Sage Hospitality Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA. 346-354. Jacoby, Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut (Eds.) Kumar, Piyush (2002)*, “The impact of (1978). Brand Loyalty: Measurement and performance, cost and competitive Management. Wiley: New York. considerations on the relationship between Jacoby, Jacob, and David B. Kyner (1973), satisfaction and repurchase intent in business “Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing markets,” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, No. 1, pp. 55-68. Vol.10 No.1, pp.1-9. Lam, Shun Y., Venkatesh Shankar, Krishna M. Johnson, Blair T., Brian Mullen and Eduardo Erramilli and Bvsan Murthy (2004), Salas (1995), “Comparison of three major “Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and meta-analytic approaches,” Journal of Applied switching costs: An illustration from a Psychology, Vol. 80 No.1, pp. 94 - 106. business-to-business service context,” Journal Jones, Michael A., David L. Mothersbaugh and of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 Sharon E. Beatty (2000)*, “Switching barriers No.3, pp. 293-311. and repurchase intentions in services,” Journal of Retailing, Vol.76 No.2, pp. 259-274.

20 Meta Analysis

Law, Agnes K. Y., Y. V. Hui and Xiande Zhao Narayandas, Das (1998), “Measuring and (2004)*, “Modeling repurchase frequency and managing the benefits of customer retention customer satisfaction for fast food an empirical investigation,” Journal of outlets,” The International Journal of Quality Service Research, Vol. 1 No.2, pp. 108-128. & Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No.4/5, Oliver, Richard L. (1999), “Whence consumer pp. 545-563. loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, Vol.63, pp. Lee, Eun-Ju and Jeffrey W. Overby (2004), 33-44. "Creating value for online shoppers: Olsen, Svein O. (2007), “Repurchase loyalty: The implications for satisfaction and loyalty," role of involvement and satis- Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, faction,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol.24, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, No. 4, pp. 315-337. Vol. 17, pp. 54-67. Olsen, Svein O. (2002), “Comparative evaluation Lee, Jonathan, Lee, Janghyuk and Feick, and the relationship between quality, Lawrence (2006)*, “Incorporating word-of- satisfaction, and repurchase loyalty,” Journal mouth effects in estimating customer lifetime of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 value,” Journal of Database Marketing & No.3, pp. 240-249. Customer Strategy Management, Vol. 14 No. Olsen, Svein O., James Wilcox and Ulf Olsson 1, pp. 29-39. (2005)*, “Consequences of ambivalence on Lee, Richard and Jenni Romaniuk (2009), satisfaction and loyalty,” Psychology & "Relating switching costs to positive and Marketing, Vol. 22 No.3, pp. 247-269. negative word-of-mouth," Journal of Orsingher, Chiara, Sara Valentini and Matteo de Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Angelis (2010), "A meta-analysis of Complaining Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 54-67. satisfaction with complaint handling in Leingpibul, Thaweephan, Sunil Thomas S., Allen services," Journal of the Academy of Broyles and Robert H. Ross (2009), Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 169- "Loyalty's influence on the consumer 186. satisfaction and (re) purchase behavior Piercy, Nigel F. (2010), "Evolution of strategic relationship," Journal of Consumer sales organizations in business-to-business Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining marketing," Journal of Business & Industrial Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 36-53. Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 349 - 359. Mellens, Martin, Marnik, G. Dekimpe and Jan- Peyrot, Mark and Doris Van Doren (1994)*, Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (1996), “A review “Effect of a class action suit on consumer of brand-loyalty measures,” Tijdschrift voor repurchase intentions,” The Journal of Econoniie en Management, Vol.4, pp. 507- Consumer Affairs, Vol. 28 No.2, pp. 361-379. 533. Powers, Thomas L. and Dawn Bendall Valentine Mittal, Vikas and Wagner A. Kamakura (2001)*, (2008), "A review of the role of satisfaction, “Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and quality, and value on firm performance," repurchase behavior: Investigating the Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, moderating effect of customer char- Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, acteristics,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, pp. 80-101. Vol.38 No.1, pp. 131-142. Preis, Michael W. (2003)*, “The impact of Mittal, Vikas, William T. Ross Jr. and Patrick M. interpersonal satisfaction on repurchase Baldasare (1998), “The asymmetric impact of decisions,” Journal of Supply Chain negative and positive attribute-level Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 30-38. performance on overall satisfaction and Quick, Martin J. and Suzan Burton (2000)*, “An repurchase intentions,” Journal of Marketing, investigation of the determinants of Vol. 62 No.1, pp. 33-47. repurchase in a high involvement category,” Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), Paper presented at the Australian & New “The commitment-trust theory of relationship Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. marketing,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.

Volume 24, 2011 21

Rauyruen, Papassapa and Kenneth E. Miller Sundaramurthy, Chamu, Dawna L. Rhoades and (2007), “Relationship quality as a predictor of Paula L. Rechner (2005), “A meta-analysis of B2B customer loyalty,” Journal of Business the effects of executive and institutional Research, Vol. 60 No.1, pp. 21-31. ownership on firm performance,” Journal of Reichheld, Frederick F., Robert G. Markey Jr. and Managerial Issues, Vol. 17 No.4, pp. 494- Christopher Hopton (2000), “The loyalty 510. effect - the relationship between loyalty and Szymanski, David M. and David H. Henard profits,” European Business Journal, Vol.12 (2001)*, “Customer satisfaction: A meta- No.3, pp. 134-139. analysis of the empirical evidence,” Journal Rowley, Jennifer and Jillian Dawes (2000), of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 “Disloyalty: a closer look at non-loyals,” The No.1, pp. 16-35. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 Taylor, Steven A. and Hunter, Gary L. (2002)*, No.6, pp. 538-547. “The impact of loyalty with e-CRM software Saxton, Matthew L. (2006), “Meta-analysis in and e-services,” International Journal of library and information science: Method, Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, history, and recommendations for reporting pp. 452-474. research,” Library Trends, Vol. 55 No.1, pp. Taylor, Steven A., Hunter, Gary L. and 158-170. Longfellow, Timothy A. (2006), "Testing an Seiders, Kathleen, Glenn B. Voss, Dhruv Grewal expanded attitude model of goal-directed and Andrea L. Godfrey (2005)*, “Do satisfied behavior in a loyalty context," Journal of customers buy more? Examining moderating Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and influences in a retailing context,” Journal of Complaining Behavior, Vol.19, pp.18-39. Marketing, Vol.69 No.4, pp.26-43. Tsai, Hsien-Tung, Heng-Chiang Huang, Yi-Long Shankar, Venkatesh, Smith, Amy K. and Jaw and Wen-Kuo Chen (2006)*, “Why on- Rangaswamy, Arvind (2003)*, “Customer line customers remain with a particular e- satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline retailer: An integrative model and empirical environments,” International Journal of evidence,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. No. 5, pp. 447-464. 153-175. Wanke, Michaela and Malte Fiese (2004), “The Shih, Ya-Yueh and Fang, Kwoting (2005)*, role of experience in consumer decisions: The “Customer defections analysis: an case of brand loyalty,” In T. Betsch, & examination of online bookstores,” The TQM Haberstroh, S. (Ed.), The Routines of Decision Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 425-439. Making (pp. 289-308). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Soderlund, Magnus and Mats Vilgon (1999)*, Associates Publisher, Inc. “Customer satisfaction and links to customer Whitener, Ellen M. (1990), “Confusion of profitability: An empirical examination of the confidence intervals and credibility intervals association between attitudes and in meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied behavior,” SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Psychology, Vol.75 No.3, pp. 315-321. Business Administration, pp. 1-21. Woodruff, Robert B. (1997), "Customer value: the Solvang, Bernt Krohn (2007), "Satisfaction, next source for competitive advantage," loyalty, and repurchase: a study of Norwegian Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, customers of furniture and grocery stores," Vol. 25 No.2, pp. 139-153. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Yang, Zhilin and Robin T. Peterson (2004), Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and Vol. 20, pp. 110-122. loyalty: The role of switching Suh, Jung-Chae and Youjae Yi (2006), “When costs,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 brand attitudes affect the customer No.10, pp. 799-822. satisfaction-loyalty relation: The moderating Yoshida, Masayuki and Jeffrey D. James (2010), role of product involvement,” Journal of "Customer satisfaction with game and service Consumer Psychology, Vol.16, No. 2, pp. experiences: antecedents and consequences," 145-155. Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 338-361.

22 Meta Analysis

Yu, Yi-Ting and Alison Dean (2001), “The Karatepe, Osman M. and Ekiz, Erdogan H. contribution of emotional satisfaction to (2004), “The effects of organizational consumer loyalty,” International Journal of responses to complaints on satisfaction and Service Industry Management, Vol.12 No.3/4, loyalty: a study of hotel guests in Northern pp. 234-250. Cyprus,” Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14 Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry and A. No. 6, pp. 476-486. Parasuraman (1996), “The behavioral Kim, Moon-Koo, Myeong-Cheol Park and Dong- consequences of service quality,” Journal of Heon Jeong (2004), “The effects of customer Marketing, Vol. 60 No.2, pp. 31-46. satisfaction and switching barrier on customer Zineldin, Mosad (2006), “The royalty of loyalty: loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication CRM, quality and retention,” The Journal of services,” Telecommunications Policy, Vol.28 Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 430- No.2, pp. 145-159. 437. Newman, Joseph W. and Richard A. Werbel (1973), “Multivariate analysis of brand loyalty for major household *Studies included in the meta- appliances,” Journal of Marketing Research, analysis and cited in the article. Vol.10 No.4, pp. 404-409. Olsen, Line L. and Michael D. Johnson (2003), Additional studies included in the meta-analysis: “Service equity, satisfaction, and loyalty: From transaction-specific to cumulative Alonso, Sergio (2000), “The antecedents and evaluation,” Journal of Service Research, consequences of customer loyalty: the roles of Vol. 5 No.3, pp.184-195. customer satisfaction and consumer trust- Spreng, Richard A., Harrell, Gilbert D. and commitment,” Doctoral dissertation, Mackoy, Robert D. (1995), “Service recovery: University of Texas-Pan American. Impact on satisfaction and intentions,” The Andreassen, Wallin T. and Bödil Lindestad Journal of Services Management, Vol. 9 No. (1998), “The effect of corporate image in the 1, pp. 15-23. formation of customer loyalty,” Journal of Suh, Jung-Chae and Youjae Yi (2006), “When Service Research, Vol.8 No.1, pp. 82-92. brand attitudes affect the customer Ball, Dwayne, Coelho, Pedro-Simoes and Machas satisfaction-loyalty relation: The moderating Alexandra (2004), “The role of role of product involvement,” Journal of communication and trust in explaining Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No.2, pp. 145- customer loyalty: an extension to the ECSI 155. model,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. Tsiros, Michael and Mittal, Vikas (2000), 38 No. 9/10, pp. 1272-1293. “Regret: a model of its antecedents and Hallowell, Roger (1996), “The relationships of consequences in consumer decision customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, making,” Journal of Consumer Research, and profitability: an empirical Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 401-417 study,” International Journal of Service Turel, Ofir and Serenko, Alexander (2004), “User Industry Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp.27-42. satisfaction with mobile services in Huber, Frank and Herrmann, Andreas (2001), Canada,” Proceedings of the Third “Achieving brand and dealer loyalty: the case International Conference on Mobile Business. of the automotive industry,” International Vickery, Shawnee K., Droge, Cornelia, Stank, Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Theodore P., Goldsby, Thomas J. and Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 97-122. Markland, Robert E. (2004), “The Johnson, Michael D., Gustafsson, Anders, performance implications of media richness in Andreassen Tor Wallin, Lervik, Line and Cha, a Business-to-Business service environment: Jaesung (2001), “The evolution and future of direct versus indirect effects,” Management national customer satisfaction index Science, Vol. 50 No. 8, pp. 1106-1119. models,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 217-245.

Volume 24, 2011 23

Wahid, Nabsiah A., Ramayah and Yong, Chuah K. (2003), “Satisfaction and loyalty of Send correspondence regarding this article to: Malaysian SMEs: the case of trade portals,” Paper presented at the Asian Academy of Russell Abratt Management Conference. Professor of Marketing Yang, Zhilin and Peterson, Robin T. (2004), H Wayne Huizenga School of Business and “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and Entrepreneurship Nova Southeastern University, loyalty: the role of switching And Wits Business School, University of the costs,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. Witwatersrand 10, pp. 799-822. 3301 College Avenue Yu, Yi-Ting and Dean, Alison (2001), “The Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 contribution of emotional satisfaction to Tel. (954) 262-5123 consumer loyalty,” International Journal of Fax. (954) 262-3960 Service Industry Management, Vol. 12 No. e-mail: [email protected] 3/4, pp. 234-250.

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE META-ANALYSIS

Loyalty-Satisfaction Relationship Experimental Setting Authors Strength Geography Setting 1 Alonso, 2000 Moderate and weak North Telecommunication B2C America 2 Andreassen and Lindestad, Strong Norway Insurance industry B2C 1998 3 Ball et al., 2003 Strong and Portugal Banking industry B2C moderate 4 Boshoff, 2005 Strong South-Africa Banking industry B2C 5 Butcher et al., 2001 Strong Australia Service industry B2C 7 Carpenter and Fairhurst, Strong North Products B2C 2005 America 8 Dixon et al., 2005 Strong Australia Retail industry (online) B2C 9 Edvardsson et al., 2000 Strong and Sweden Product & services B2C moderate 10 Floh and Treiblmaier, Moderate Austria Banking industry B2C 2006 (online) 11 Fornell et al., 1996 Strong North Different economic B2C America sectors 12 Genzi and Pelloni, 2004 Strong and weak Italy Service: fitness center B2C 14 Hallowell, 2006 Strong and North Banking industry B2C moderate America 16 Harris and Goode, 2004 Strong and weak UK Online consumers B2C

24 Meta Analysis

17 Huber and Herrmann, Strong, moderate Germany Auto industry B2C 2001 and weak 19 Johnson et. al., 2001 Moderate and weak Norway Service industries B2C 20 Kandampully and Weak Australia Hotel industry B2C Suhartanto, 2000 21 Karatepe and Ekiz, 2004 Strong Cyprus Hotel industry B2C 22 Law et al., 2004 Strong North Restaurant B2C America 23 Lee and Overby, 2004 Strong North Retail industry (online) B2C America 24 Olsen and Johnson, 2003 Strong and Norway Banking industry B2C moderate 25 Olsen et al., 2005 Strong, moderate Norway Product: seafood B2C and weak 26 Shankar et al., 2003 Strong, moderate North Lodging industry B2C and weak America 27 Suh and Y, 2006 Strong Korea Products B2C 28 Taylor and Hunter, 2002 Strong North Service: e-CRM B2C America 29 Vickery and Droge, 2004 Strong North Service: logistics B2B America 30 Wahid and Ramayah, 2003 Strong Malaysia E-commerce B2B 31 Yang and Peterson, 2004 Strong Hong Kong Banking industry B2C (online) 32 Yu and Dean, 2001 Strong Australia Higher Education B2C

Strong relationships with correlations above 0.45; moderate between 0.3-0.45, and weak relationships with correlations below 0.3

REPURCHASE INTENT- EXPERIMENTAL SETTING SATISFACTION RELATIONSHIP

Authors Strength Geography Setting 1 Anderson and Strong Sweden Variety of industries B2C Sullivan, 1993 2 Davidow, 2003 Strong North Service (complains) B2C America 3 Deslandes, 2003 Strong Caribbean Travel industry B2C 4 Eggert and Ulaga, Strong Germany Service (supplier services) B2B 2002 5 Fullerton, 2005 Strong North Retail B2C America

Volume 24, 2011 25

6 Harris, 2003 Strong Multi- Complaint B2C countries 7 Jones et al., 2000 Strong North Banking services or B2C America hairstyling/barber services 8 Kim, 2004 Strong and Korea Online MIS, marketing and e- B2C moderate commerce 9 Kumar, 2002 Moderate and North Supplier B2B weak America 10 Mittal and Strong North Auto industry B2C Kamakura, 2001 America 11 Preis, 2003 Strong North Supply management B2B America 12 Quick and Burton, Moderate and North Auto industry B2C 2000 weak America 13 Seiders et al., 2005 Strong North Retail B2C America 14 Shih and Fang, Strong and weak China Retail (online) B2C 2005 15 Soderlund and Moderate Europe Wholesaler B2B Vilgon, 1999 16 Spreng et al., 1995 Strong North Service B2C America 17 Taylor and Hunter, Strong North Technology B2C 2002 America 18 Tsai et al., 2006 Moderate Taiwan Retail (online) B2C 19 Turel and Serenko, Strong North Telecommunication B2C 2004 America

REPURCHASE-SATISFACTION RELATIONSHIP 1 Durvasula et al., Strong Singapore Insurance industry B2C 2004 2 Hennig-Thurau, Strong Germany Retail and travel industries B2C 2004 3 Homburg and Strong, moderate Germany Auto industry B2C Giering, 2001 and weak 4 Seiders et al., 2005 Weak North Retail B2C America 5 Szymanski and Strong Global Variety of industries B2C/B2B Henard, 2001 6 Tsiros and Mittal, Moderate North Computers B2C 2000 America

26 Meta Analysis

LOYALTY-REPURCHASE RELATIONSHIP 1 Lee et al., 2006 Strong France Telecommunication B2C 2 Newman and Strong and North Appliances B2C Werbel, 1973 moderate America 3 Peyrot and Van Weak North Auto industry B2C Doren, 1994 America 4 Taylor and Hunter, Strong North Service: e-CRM B2C 2002 America

Strong relationships with correlations above 0.45; moderate between 0.3-0.45, and weak relationships with correlations below 0.3